A spa company’s planning application to put up an electronic billboard in the centre of Brighton has failed on appeal.
The Gel Bottle Inc wanted to fit the digital hoarding, measuring 15ft x 8ft, or 4.5m x 2.5m, to the side of 51-53 West Street, its headquarters and home to its TGB Spa business. It was formerly a TSB bank branch.
In September, officials at Brighton and Hove City Council turn down the proposal, saying that it was an “unsympathetic addition” to the building and would harm the Old Town Conservation Area.
The council’s heritage team said that the proposed billboard would be “a large, incongruous addition” to a building on the edge of the conservation area.
The Gel Bottle Inc submitted an application prepared with its agent LED Synergy and said that the display would be operational during business hours only – from 9am to 5pm on weekdays.
The company said in its application: “No individual picture on the LED screen shall contain moving images, animation, intermittent or full-motion images or any images that resemble road signs or traffic signals.
“The site proposed is within a conservation area. This side of West Street is within the Old Town Conservation Area. However, we believe that the sign will not negatively impact the area.
“The application proposal aims to increase interest in the retail establishment and to draw in new clientele to increase business.”
The company appealed against the refusal and included images of existing LED advertising boards in nearby Upper Gloucester Road, North Road and outside Prizm night club at the bottom of West Street.
In a report, planning inspector John Allan said: “Despite the busy commercial city centre location, I observed during my visit that signage within the conservation area was largely limited to ground-floor shop fascia panels and projecting signs above of various forms.
“Overall, I found the extent of commercial signage associated with the variety of business premises within the conservation area to be appropriately respectful of the area’s special character, being restricted and subtle in terms of numbers, size, position, illumination and visual impact.
“In contrast, the proposed advert would be large and prominent in an elevated position, appearing as an extraneous and solitary addition of its type to the building.
“Notwithstanding the controls that would regulate its function, its illuminated form and changing images would draw the eye to an installation that would have a conspicuous and inharmonious presence within the conservation area.”
“conservation area” 😂
West Street is an absolute cesspit. A big TV is if anything “in keeping”
I can’t see the harm in this if it’s helping a local business to thrive?
Planning just seems to be about blocking anything for no good reason other than to keep things exactly the same.
We sit at home watching screens, and then all day – at work or on the bus – we can look at smaller screens, losing touch with those who are next to us.
So the question here, is do we want even more flashing screens on the streets, all around us and above our heads, and selling things or delivering fake news?
I’d say not.
Where this first happened – like in Times Square, New York – it was a novelty. But actually, there were no phones back then.
How did screen watching become a necessity?
The irony is that I’m writing this, while watching a screen.
Thanks to the planners for turning this one down.